The table below lists the 30 batsmen in Test history whose known "balls faced" innings numbers at least 20, and whose average balls faced per innings exceeds 100:

Players with average balls faced/innings greater than 100

Player

Team

Balls faced/innings

Balls faced/run

Herbert Sutcliffe

England

163.95

2.89

Don Bradman

Australia

142.00

1.71

Walter Hammon

England

129.16

2.63

Glenn Turner

New Zealand

126.91

2.94

Bill Woodfull

Australia

125.66

3.21

Maurice Leyland

England

125.47

2.50

John Reid

New Zealand

124.24

2.82

Len Hutton

England

123.71

2.64

Geoff Boycott

England

122.23

2.82

Bill Lawry

Australia

118.65

2.50

Jack Hobbs

England

115.94

2.15

John Edrich

England

115.41

2.69

Ian Redpath

Australia

113.46

2.58

Mark Richardson

New Zealand

113.31

2.65

Rahul Dravid

India

112.50

2.36

Bob Simpson

Australia

111.95

2.20

Trevor Bailey

England

111.73

4.05

Bill Ponsford

Australia

111.36

2.23

Bill Brown

Australia

110.63

2.57

Shoaib Mohammad

Pakistan

107.49

2.56

Sunil Gavaskar

India

105.70

2.25

Jacques Kallis

South Africa

105.29

2.25

Ken Barrington

England

104.54

2.36

Jack Fingleton

Australia

103.67

3.24

Tom Graveney

England

103.29

2.51

Allan Border

Australia

103.29

2.43

Chris Tavare

England

102.41

3.27

John Wright

New Zealand

102.23

2.84

Andrew Jones

New Zealand

102.03

2.58

Asanka Gurusinha

Sri Lanka

101.82

2.73

Three things stand out for me. The first is the over-representation of players from days gone by. One has to go to 14th place to find someone (Mark Richardson) who played this century, and in this list of 30, there are only two other, Dravid and Kallis. Test cricket was clearly more a battle of attrition in the past than it is now. But also, there were simply more balls available to be defended in those times than there are now.

Secondly, the obduracy of Herbert Sutcliffe is perhaps understated. His figure of nearly 164 balls per innings is more than 15% higher than the next most obdurate, Bradman. And at a run every 2.89 balls, he was hardly fluent, either. Another player whose high position deserves recognition is New Zealand's Glenn Turner, a very major player in a struggling team

Thirdly, the absence of any West Indians in this list confirms the impression of a carefree approach to batting. The preponderance of Australian and English batsmen is not significant. Many of the Test scorecards involving other countries simply don't have the "balls faced" data available. The highest placed West Indians are Sobers and Chanderpaul, both just over 96 balls per innings. But in the three innings for which we have "balls faced" data, George Headley averaged 139 balls per innings.

Rearranging the table in order of scoring fluency, we have:

Best scoring rate among players with average balls faced/innings greater than 100

Player

Team

Balls faced/innings

Balls faced/run

Don Bradman

Australia

142.00

1.71

Jack Hobbs

England

115.94

2.15

Bob Simpson

Australia

111.95

2.20

Bill Ponsford

Australia

111.36

2.23

Jacques Kallis

South Africa+

105.29

2.25

Sunil Gavaskar

India

105.70

2.25

Ken Barrington

England

104.54

2.36

Rahul Dravid

India+

112.50

2.36

Allan Border

Australia

103.29

2.43

Maurice Leyland

England

125.47

2.50

Bill Lawry

Australia

118.65

2.50

Tom Graveney

England

103.29

2.51

Shoaib Mohammad

Pakistan

107.49

2.56

Bill Brown

Australia

110.63

2.57

Ian Redpath

Australia

113.46

2.58

Andrew Jones

New Zealand

102.03

2.58

Walter Hammond

England

129.16

2.63

Len Hutton

England

123.71

2.64

Mark Richardson

New Zealand

113.31

2.65

John Edrich

England

115.41

2.69

Asanka Gurusinha

Sri Lanka

101.82

2.73

John Reid

New Zealand

124.24

2.82

Geoff Boycott

England

122.23

2.82

John Wright

New Zealand

102.23

2.84

Herbert Sutcliffe

England

163.95

2.89

Glenn Turner

New Zealand

126.91

2.94

Bill Woodfull

Australia

125.66

3.21

Jack Fingleton

Australia

103.67

3.24

Chris Tavare

England

102.41

3.27

Trevor Bailey

England

111.73

4.05

In this respect, Bradman (over 20% more fluent than anyone else) and Hobbs show their class, while who would have thought that Ponsford would have rated so highly here? Perhaps we need to re-assess some of these players! Barrington beats Border. Lawry beats Redpath. But Tavare and Bailey are where we expect!

The last table gives the same data for top three most obdurate players at each position in the batting order. The qualification has been reduced to at least ten innings where "balls faced" data is known.

Players with highest average balls faced/innings by batting position

Batting Position

1st

Balls/innings

2nd

Balls/innings

3rd

Balls/innings

Openers

Herbert Sutcliffe

163.49

Bill Woodfull

128.07

Herbie Collins

127.79

3

Walter Hammond

175.69

Don Bradman

144.50

Ken Barrington

135.82

4

Graeme Pollock

125.44

Lindsay Hassett

116.57

Mike Denness

115.10

5

Ian Redpath

122.91

Michael Hussey

114.53

Allan Border

110.57

6

Trevor Bailey

137.08

Garry Sobers

124.05

Shivnarine Chanderpaul

123.19

7

Thilan Samaraweera

111.91

Brian McMillan

100.78

Ravi Shastri

92.00

8

Dion Nash

69.91

Manoj Prabhakar

69.77

Fred Titmus

65.38

9

Graham Dilley

60.20

Kiran More

58.43

Ian Salisbury

55.60

10

John Bracewell

45.33

Tim May

38.85

Sarfraz Nawaz

38.00

11

Arthur Mailey

36.30

Danny Morrison

20.28

Ashley Mallett

19.83

Occupancy of the crease clearly declines as one descends through the batting order, although the figures at number 6 are interesting. It is not only the special character of Trevor Bailey causing this, because Sobers and Chanderpaul also are higher than many players above them in the batting order. I suspect it is a realisation by a number 6 that he is the last specialist batsman, and he sets himself to bat through the innings with the tail.

A study of players at the other end of the scale, those who survive least, is also interesting, but that can wait for another time.

Astonishing stats - shows you how much the game has changed.
Who'd have thought Boycott scored faster than the cavilier Glenn Turner, or Hammond (whose always called 'majestic', never dull) would be slower than Barrington (who is usually just ignored).
Astonishing.

I would suggest making the strike rates out of 100 balls faced - as presented, the numbers are so evenly bunched as to make it harder to see differences, and because of ODIs, we're already familiar with that method.

Jahan Zada Buneri
on July 14, 2010, 7:56 GMT

Here I am not saying that either Don is better or Tendulkar. I am just putting facts. I think both are equivalent from talent point of view.

Tendulkar played test cricket in ten countries in 57 different grounds.

Jahan Zada Buneri
on July 7, 2010, 10:30 GMT

There is no doubt that Sir Don is legend of cricket and best batsman of his era. Also very quick scorer too, concentration was also very strong. But I think if you want to analyze, you can do it like pre and post 1950 or in four quarters per century.

His average is impossible to achieve in modern era. He played seven bowlers out of 150 leading bowlers in test cricket in which I think Alec Bedser was best, medium fast seam bowler. Also Larwood (fastest) and Voce was also there. Verity was also good bowler who was slow left arm orthodox.

Sir Don faced only one bowler with 200 or more wickets in test.

Tendulkar faced 30 bowlers with 200 or more wickets in test matches in 57 different grounds.

As I think both are equivalent from talent point of view. Please see big picture of cricket.

craigmnz
on July 6, 2010, 6:18 GMT

Something I've been meaning to ask. Am I correct in assuming that the NZ John Reid is actually John F Reid the left-handed middle order batsman of the 1980s - rather than John R Reid, New Zealand's original Mr Cricket?

Ric: Yes that is right!

Mohammad Omair
on July 4, 2010, 19:20 GMT

Totally 148 bowlers took 100 or more in test cricket in which 56 took 200 or more and Sir Bradman faced only six of them in which three came after world war II, one died during it, one just before it and remaining one left cricket in early thirties. Five out of six bowlers from same team. Almost all bowlers were amateurs.

How we know that his 99.9 is better or Tendulkar 55.5. Tendulkar faced 57 bowlers in test cricket with 100 or more on 57 different grounds in ten countries.

Please do not say that Sir Don is best, it is just like in city ten teams are there but at initial level only two and one guy attained highest average at initial level. Can we say he is best at city level due to average. Make a common sense, without playing other eight teams how we know that he is best.

Same case Sir Bradman. He only faced one wrist spinner with 100 or more wickets that was Wright. He never faced quality leg spinners. Finger sp Laker was there but he faced him in three test matches only.

Zeeshan Ahmed Siddiqui
on July 2, 2010, 6:38 GMT

Uncovered pitches were there but these picthes were matt over concrete picthes. These uncovered picthes only became difficult those days after rain only.

Sir Don never managed any master inning on rain affected pitches. Like Trumper was better batsman than him on these type of rain affected picthes. Also Trumper was most elegant batsman of those days unlike Sir Don.

Sir Don played cricket in two countries in Australia and in England on ten grounds in which 26 matches timeless too. Mostly matches against same team on same conditions against amatuers of England. 63 / 80 = 80% approx. innings against same team.

Hammond played cricket in five countries in four continents on twenty grounds.

Mostly matches against not same team on same conditions. Like 58 innings against Australia and 42 against S. Africa out of 140 innings.

I think Sir Don is one of the best and legend of cricket too but he is not best of the best like he played weakest attacks of ENGLAND.

craigmnz
on July 1, 2010, 19:12 GMT

Nikhil Kuchi - let's not get too carried away here. The doosra and reverse swing may be new innovations but Don Bradman's 'The Art of Cricket' first published in 1958 discusses swing bowling in considerable detail. He also discuss the leg-cutter with substantial illos of the late Sir Alec Bedser. In the 1963 edition of Wisden Neville Cardus describes the great S.F. Barnes special delivery as an in-swinging leg-cutter and quotes the Australian batsman Clem Hill describing being bowled by such a delivery - and Hill was a left-hander! By the way Barnes played his last test match in 1913.

Ashish Keshri
on June 29, 2010, 10:38 GMT

Hi, Putting the qualification criteria of 100 balls faced leaves out a lot of good players who were not necessarily accumulators in that sense. There are various very good test innings less than 100 balls. This is more true post 2000. In my opinion this analysis should have cut off of 50 balls, just enough to play a significant innings. Then there will be chances for those players also who have made difference in a test match in shorter time..I think the obsession with just occupying the crease in test matches has to have a limit. Might be an extreme example but Virender Sehwag is equally useful in winning test matches as compared to say Rahul Dravid..situation dependent..

Nikhil Kuchi
on June 25, 2010, 12:00 GMT

Many people talk about batting on uncovered pitches as if it is a great feat. They tend to ignore the fact that at this time, bowling was very little developed. While I cannot say, Donald Bradman and the other greats of his age were not great batsman, they did not have to face conventional swing, let alone reverse swing, off cutters, leg cutters, off breaks and leg breaks that batsmen face these days. The bouncer may just have been in the early stages of its development, but it would not have been half as lethal as it is nowadays, so it evens out when you consider the uneven pitches. So, my point is, people should not criticise batsmen these days for playing with covered pitches and other added benefits, because if you consider the lack of knowledge in the bowling area at the time, who knows, the batsman of this age might really be way better batsmen.

AB
on June 24, 2010, 5:44 GMT

@Gizza. Thank you for the education. Could you please also inform us why exactly it was "impossible" to "bat attackingly" on uncovered pitches?...i.e when they were dry of course

Waspsting
on October 25, 2010, 23:00 GMT

Astonishing stats - shows you how much the game has changed.
Who'd have thought Boycott scored faster than the cavilier Glenn Turner, or Hammond (whose always called 'majestic', never dull) would be slower than Barrington (who is usually just ignored).
Astonishing.

I would suggest making the strike rates out of 100 balls faced - as presented, the numbers are so evenly bunched as to make it harder to see differences, and because of ODIs, we're already familiar with that method.

Jahan Zada Buneri
on July 14, 2010, 7:56 GMT

Here I am not saying that either Don is better or Tendulkar. I am just putting facts. I think both are equivalent from talent point of view.

Tendulkar played test cricket in ten countries in 57 different grounds.

Jahan Zada Buneri
on July 7, 2010, 10:30 GMT

There is no doubt that Sir Don is legend of cricket and best batsman of his era. Also very quick scorer too, concentration was also very strong. But I think if you want to analyze, you can do it like pre and post 1950 or in four quarters per century.

His average is impossible to achieve in modern era. He played seven bowlers out of 150 leading bowlers in test cricket in which I think Alec Bedser was best, medium fast seam bowler. Also Larwood (fastest) and Voce was also there. Verity was also good bowler who was slow left arm orthodox.

Sir Don faced only one bowler with 200 or more wickets in test.

Tendulkar faced 30 bowlers with 200 or more wickets in test matches in 57 different grounds.

As I think both are equivalent from talent point of view. Please see big picture of cricket.

craigmnz
on July 6, 2010, 6:18 GMT

Something I've been meaning to ask. Am I correct in assuming that the NZ John Reid is actually John F Reid the left-handed middle order batsman of the 1980s - rather than John R Reid, New Zealand's original Mr Cricket?

Ric: Yes that is right!

Mohammad Omair
on July 4, 2010, 19:20 GMT

Totally 148 bowlers took 100 or more in test cricket in which 56 took 200 or more and Sir Bradman faced only six of them in which three came after world war II, one died during it, one just before it and remaining one left cricket in early thirties. Five out of six bowlers from same team. Almost all bowlers were amateurs.

How we know that his 99.9 is better or Tendulkar 55.5. Tendulkar faced 57 bowlers in test cricket with 100 or more on 57 different grounds in ten countries.

Please do not say that Sir Don is best, it is just like in city ten teams are there but at initial level only two and one guy attained highest average at initial level. Can we say he is best at city level due to average. Make a common sense, without playing other eight teams how we know that he is best.

Same case Sir Bradman. He only faced one wrist spinner with 100 or more wickets that was Wright. He never faced quality leg spinners. Finger sp Laker was there but he faced him in three test matches only.

Zeeshan Ahmed Siddiqui
on July 2, 2010, 6:38 GMT

Uncovered pitches were there but these picthes were matt over concrete picthes. These uncovered picthes only became difficult those days after rain only.

Sir Don never managed any master inning on rain affected pitches. Like Trumper was better batsman than him on these type of rain affected picthes. Also Trumper was most elegant batsman of those days unlike Sir Don.

Sir Don played cricket in two countries in Australia and in England on ten grounds in which 26 matches timeless too. Mostly matches against same team on same conditions against amatuers of England. 63 / 80 = 80% approx. innings against same team.

Hammond played cricket in five countries in four continents on twenty grounds.

Mostly matches against not same team on same conditions. Like 58 innings against Australia and 42 against S. Africa out of 140 innings.

I think Sir Don is one of the best and legend of cricket too but he is not best of the best like he played weakest attacks of ENGLAND.

craigmnz
on July 1, 2010, 19:12 GMT

Nikhil Kuchi - let's not get too carried away here. The doosra and reverse swing may be new innovations but Don Bradman's 'The Art of Cricket' first published in 1958 discusses swing bowling in considerable detail. He also discuss the leg-cutter with substantial illos of the late Sir Alec Bedser. In the 1963 edition of Wisden Neville Cardus describes the great S.F. Barnes special delivery as an in-swinging leg-cutter and quotes the Australian batsman Clem Hill describing being bowled by such a delivery - and Hill was a left-hander! By the way Barnes played his last test match in 1913.

Ashish Keshri
on June 29, 2010, 10:38 GMT

Hi, Putting the qualification criteria of 100 balls faced leaves out a lot of good players who were not necessarily accumulators in that sense. There are various very good test innings less than 100 balls. This is more true post 2000. In my opinion this analysis should have cut off of 50 balls, just enough to play a significant innings. Then there will be chances for those players also who have made difference in a test match in shorter time..I think the obsession with just occupying the crease in test matches has to have a limit. Might be an extreme example but Virender Sehwag is equally useful in winning test matches as compared to say Rahul Dravid..situation dependent..

Nikhil Kuchi
on June 25, 2010, 12:00 GMT

Many people talk about batting on uncovered pitches as if it is a great feat. They tend to ignore the fact that at this time, bowling was very little developed. While I cannot say, Donald Bradman and the other greats of his age were not great batsman, they did not have to face conventional swing, let alone reverse swing, off cutters, leg cutters, off breaks and leg breaks that batsmen face these days. The bouncer may just have been in the early stages of its development, but it would not have been half as lethal as it is nowadays, so it evens out when you consider the uneven pitches. So, my point is, people should not criticise batsmen these days for playing with covered pitches and other added benefits, because if you consider the lack of knowledge in the bowling area at the time, who knows, the batsman of this age might really be way better batsmen.

AB
on June 24, 2010, 5:44 GMT

@Gizza. Thank you for the education. Could you please also inform us why exactly it was "impossible" to "bat attackingly" on uncovered pitches?...i.e when they were dry of course

Shafiq
on June 24, 2010, 4:28 GMT

wonderful TO SEE, THE MOST UNDERRATED BATSMAN OF THE 1990'S IN THE LIST, THE ONE WHO SHOULD ACTUALLY OPEN WITH HI FATHER HANIF IN ALL TIME PAKISTAN 11. sHOAIB mUHAMMAD SITS IN BOTH LISTS O BALLS AND STRIKE RATES.

hE IS THERE WITH MODERN GREATS OF dRAVID AND kALLIS. pLEASE SEE AGAIN.

Engle
on June 23, 2010, 14:11 GMT

What a nice black-and-white picture of Bradman, so poised and in control, with the fielders expectantly awaiting a scrap of something

Peter Graham
on June 23, 2010, 10:26 GMT

Good to see Jacques Kallis so high up the list - more stats to go against the Kallis knockers who say he is slow & selfish - Jacques you would always be in my team.

testaddict
on June 22, 2010, 14:04 GMT

look at the scoring rates on this list. apart from bradman everyone has a strike rate less than fifty

Gizza
on June 22, 2010, 11:23 GMT

@AB, uncovered pitches were only hard to bat on when it rained. The pitch becomes alive when huge amounts of water enter the surface. Secondly, it is impossible to bat attackingly on uncovered pitches. Note that the only 3 modern players on the list (Richardson, Dravid, Kallis) are very defence-oriented batsmen. The only aggressive batsman on the entire list is Bradman and he is an outlier everywhere so that is no suprise.

Vinish Garg
on June 21, 2010, 19:07 GMT

Good to see that among only Dravid and Kallis qualify to be in the 'elite' list. Hard work pays off in many respects. Hats off to these two legends.

Good to see that among only Dravid and Kallis qualify to be in the 'elite' list. Hard work pays off in many respects. Hats off to these two legends.

Gizza
on June 22, 2010, 11:23 GMT

@AB, uncovered pitches were only hard to bat on when it rained. The pitch becomes alive when huge amounts of water enter the surface. Secondly, it is impossible to bat attackingly on uncovered pitches. Note that the only 3 modern players on the list (Richardson, Dravid, Kallis) are very defence-oriented batsmen. The only aggressive batsman on the entire list is Bradman and he is an outlier everywhere so that is no suprise.

testaddict
on June 22, 2010, 14:04 GMT

look at the scoring rates on this list. apart from bradman everyone has a strike rate less than fifty

Peter Graham
on June 23, 2010, 10:26 GMT

Good to see Jacques Kallis so high up the list - more stats to go against the Kallis knockers who say he is slow & selfish - Jacques you would always be in my team.

Engle
on June 23, 2010, 14:11 GMT

What a nice black-and-white picture of Bradman, so poised and in control, with the fielders expectantly awaiting a scrap of something

Shafiq
on June 24, 2010, 4:28 GMT

wonderful TO SEE, THE MOST UNDERRATED BATSMAN OF THE 1990'S IN THE LIST, THE ONE WHO SHOULD ACTUALLY OPEN WITH HI FATHER HANIF IN ALL TIME PAKISTAN 11. sHOAIB mUHAMMAD SITS IN BOTH LISTS O BALLS AND STRIKE RATES.

hE IS THERE WITH MODERN GREATS OF dRAVID AND kALLIS. pLEASE SEE AGAIN.

AB
on June 24, 2010, 5:44 GMT

@Gizza. Thank you for the education. Could you please also inform us why exactly it was "impossible" to "bat attackingly" on uncovered pitches?...i.e when they were dry of course